


/^4^ 



L 183 
.N5 E5 
1901 
Copy 1 



REPORT 



OF THE 



DEPARTMENT OF EDUGATION 



OF THE 



CITY OF NEW YORK 



TO THE 



MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 



In regard to a statement dated December 19, 1900, 

published and circulated through the medium 

of the Board of Directors of the Merchants' 

Association of New York. 



HALL OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. 

PARK AVENUE & FIFTY-NINTH STREET, 
JANUARY 9, 1901. 



Office of the I*resi<l«'nt 



Department of Education 

City of New^ YorR 

Board of fI.clucation 

ParK A.venue and Fifty-nintH Street 



New York, January 9tli, 1901. 

HON. ROBERT A. VAX WYCK, 

Mayor. 

Dear Sir : 

Doubtless you have seen a report, emanatinj^ from The 
merchants' Association of New York criticising the Board of Education. 
Under ordinary circumstances I would refrain from taking any notice 
of a document of this descrii>tion, but this Association has given 
wide circulation to its report, notwithstanding the fact that the data 
contained therein have no foundation whatever. I will not permit 
any association to disti-ibute such a dt>cument without replying to it, 
and I therefore enclose you a statement, coming from the Board «>f 
Education, which refutes every assertion contained in this so-called 
" Analysis of School Kxpenses of The City of New Y'ork " sent out by 
The Merchants' Association. 

Through you I desire to challenge this Association to contradict 
or refute any statement made by me in the report which I have the 
honor to submit herewith. 

Very truly yours, 

MILES M. O'BRIEN, 

Presidt'tii, €Joard i>f TfiiAi-iitivn,' 



Department of Education of the City of NewYork, 
Park Avenue and Fifty-ninth Street 

Borough of Manhattan, January 9, 1901. 

Hon. Robert A. Van Wyck, 

Mayor of the City of Nnv York: 

Dear Sir : There has been circulated recently a report made to 
the Board of Directors of the Merchants' Association of NewYork, 
which report appears to have received the approval of twelve direc- 
tors of said organization, and was then ordered published after 
alleged verification by a Special Committee. 

The report is voluminous, and emanating from an organization 
claiming to be devoted to mercantile and commercial interests, and 
having as its principal feature or line of action, the regulating and 
disciplining of railroads and other corporations, when their interests 
unduly clash with those of the merchants; it suggests itself at once 
that there must be some particular reason or motive for this marked 
interest and activity in the line of educational research, which would 
appear to be somewhat remote from the sphere of usefulness in 
which the organization is ostensibly engaged. However, whatever 
the purpose may be, and what motives governed the twelve directors 
of the Merchants' Association in giving publication to an untruthful 
and mischievous statement, this department is not prepared to sug- 
gest at this time. Sufficient to say that the published statement 
attempts to convey improper impressions to the public mind, and 
appears to wantonly discredit the administration of one of the most 
important factors in city affairs, namely, the Public Schools of the 
City of New York. 



Seven distinct specifications have been formulated, as well as 
general criticisms and statements. 

The Department of Education reports as follows: 

SPECIFICATION 1, 

" That the official reports of the Board of Education are espe- 
cially defective in data relating to average attendance, which 
is either the statutory or actual basis of appropriation and 
apportionment, and which greatly affects the amounts of 
specific outlays." 
The foregoing statement is almost wholly hypothetical. There 
is, however, a percentage of truth injected, sufficient to give color 
to the statement. 

Attendance is statutoril}- defined, and is the basis upon which the 
General School Fund is a])j3ortioned to the several boroughs. 

The Special School Fund is not within the purview of the statute 
relating to attendance of scholars. The Special School Fund 
contains such items as are the subject of peculiar criticism in the 
report, viz. : general repairs, supplies, fuel, light, rents, etc., etc. . 

The statute referred to is Section 1065 of the Greater New York 
Charter, which is as follows : 

"The special school fund shall be administered by the Board 
of Education. The general school fimd shall be administered 
by the respective school boards, and in the month of December 
in each year shall be apportioned for tliB next succeeding cal- 
endar year by the Board of Education among the different 
school boards of the city as follows : 

" 1. A distributive quota to each school board of six hundred 
dollars for every qualified teacher, or for successive qualified 
teachers, who shall have actually taught in the public schools 
under the charge of the board during a term of not less than 
thirty-two weeks of five successive days each, inclusive of legal 
holidays." 

" 2. The remainder of such general school fund shall be appor- 
tioned among the said school boards by the said Board of Educa- 
tion in proportion to the aggregate number of days of attendance 
of the pupils of the public schools resident in the boroughs under 
their charge, between the ages of four and twenty-one years, 
at their respective schools during the last preceding school year. 



The aggregate number of days of attendance of the pupils is to 
be ascertained from the records thereof kept by the teachers, as 
hereinafter prescribed, by adding together the whole number of 
days of attendance of each and every such pupil in the schools 
under the charge of the respective school boards. One day of 
attendance shall be counted for every child who attends one 
full day, or one full session, either forenoon or afternoon. 
Between the first and fifteenth days of January in each and 
every year, the Board of Education shall file a record of its 
apportionment of the general school fund with the comp- 
troller." 

The General School Fund (see Section 1060, Greater New York 
Charter) is applicable to the payment of salaries of the borough 
and associate superintendents and all members of the supervis- 
ing and teaching staff. 

From the foregoing it is readily perceived that the legislature 
discriminated in regard to the two funds; and rightfully and intelli- 
gently so, for the reason that the General School Fimd is applied to 
the purely educational side of the school system, in contradistinction 
to the Special School Fund, which covers the physical and special- 
ized side of the school system. 

While average attendance is a factor in school administration of 
considerable importance, especially when applied to the employment 
of the teaching force, it is not applicable arbitrarily to appropria- 
tions contained within the Special School Fund. For instance, take 
the items of "general repairs, rents, lighting, fuel," and to a large 
extent the item for supplies. The repairs to each school building 
are not necessarily of the same kind each year, for the reason that 
certain kinds of repairs to a building will last good for more than a 
year; it therefore follows that there may be no renewal of the same 
required to be provided for in the next estimate. The application 
of an arbitrary sum fixed by proportionate average attendance 
would therefore be uimecessary if not absurd. Again, it must be 
remembered that subsequent to the making of the estimate, an 
entire winter ensues; therefore, conditions in some localities and in 
many buildings may be somewhat different from what they were 
anticipated to be nearly twelve months before the contracts are 
made. It is probably unknown to the producer of the report that 
the bulk of "general repaii-s" is made during the summer vacation, 



say from July 1 to September 1, and necessarily so, in order that 
school sessions will not be interrupted. It is suggested that a hard 
winter may have some effect on the question of repairs to a school 
building, in some instances more than the matter of average attend- 
ance. The distinction is between the theoretical and statistical, 
and the practical and absolute conditions prevailing. 

More might be said in regard to the other funds mentioned, but it 
is deemed unnecessary in answering this specification to cite more 
than the one instance; others will be discussed fully in subsequent 
portions of this statement. 

As before stated, in the distribution of the General School Fund 
the ^^ aggregate days of attendance" appears as a factor together with 
the number of teachers employed. 

Suffice it to say, that nowhere in the Greater New York Charter 
can be found the principle promulgated, that average attendance is 
the basis of appropriation, distribution and expenditure. 

The principle put forward in the report is so manifestly imprac- 
tical, that the only excuse for its promulgation is the inexperience, 
nay, ignorance, of its sponsors, of school management. 

SPECIFICATION 2. 

" That such data of attendance as are given are inaccurate, 
contradictoi-y , and therefore um-eliable ; they are defective be- 
cause they lack comprehensive exhibits of details, because the 
details given are not usefully digested or classified, and because 
their sums total do not produce the aggregates elsewhere stated 
as resulting from them." 
The data furnished by and through the Department of Education 
is of three kinds : 

1. Section 1085 of the Greater New York Charter provides that 
an annual report shall be made to the Mayor, as follows : 

"The Board of Education shall, between the first day of 
August and 'the thirtieth day of November in each year, make 
and transmit to the Mayor of the City of New York a report in 
wi'iting, bearing date on the thirty-first day of July next pre- 
ceding, stating the whole number of schools within their juris- 
diction, specially designating the schools for colored children; 
the schools or societies from which reports shall have been made 



to the Board of Education, within the time limited for that pur- 
pose; the length of time such school shall haxe been kej)t open; 
the amount of public money apportioned or appropriated to 
said school or society, the number taught in each school, the 
whole amount of money drawn from the City Chamberlain for 
the purposes of public education during the year ending at the 
date of their report, distinguishing the amount received fi'om 
the general fund of the State and from all other sources ; the 
manner in which such moneys shall have been expended; and 
such other information as the Mayor may from time to time 
require in relation to common school education in the Citj^ of 
New York. The Board of Education shall make such other re- 
ports to the Ma}'or as he may call for, and at such times as he 
shall require." 

It will be observed that the section is specific in its requirements 
as to the data to be furnished. 

2. Section 1084 of the Greater New York Charter provides for an 
Annual Report to the State Superintendent, as follows : 

"The Board of Education shall, between the first day of 
August and the thirtieth day of September in each year, make 
and transmit to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction 
a report in writing for the State school year ending on the next 
preceding thirty-first day of July, which report shall be in such 
form and shall state such facts as the State Superintendent and 
the school laws of the State shall require." 

It will be observed that the nature, and form of the statistics to 
be furnished, is regulated by the requirements of the State Superin- 
tendent, and, by way of explanation, is intended to conform with 
the State System. 

3. Section 1079 of the Greater New York Charter provides for a 
report to be furnished to the Board of Education by the City Super- 
intendent of Schools, as follows : 

" The City Superintendent of Schools shall have the right of 
visitation and inquiry in all of the schools of the City of New 
York as constituted under this act, and he sJiall report to the 
Board of Education on the educational system of the city, 
and wpon the condition of any and of all the schools thereof, but he 
shall have no right of interference with the actual conduct of any 
school in the City of New York. He shall have a seat in the 
Board of Education, and the right to speak oij all matters before 
the Board, but not to vote." 



6 

There would appear to be nothing remarkable in the fact that with 
three distinct sets of reports and statistics, and not prepared on 
uniform requirements, the novice in school affairs should fail to 
appreciate their separate use and virtue. It is not remarkable that, 
through ignorance or otherwise, the novice has intermixed such re- 
ports and statistics, and innocently or disingenuously based the 
statistical fabric thereon. It is not unlikely, nay probable, that the 
statistics rec[uired to ])e furnished to the State Superintendent of 
Public Instruction under authority of statute, covering a State 
school year (two parts of two calendar years) will differ materially 
from a report to the Mayor made under authority and in pursuance 
of another section of law. Could it ])e otherwise? 

Such statistics of its affairs, both physical and educational, such 
as are necessary and requisite for the transaction and proper conduct 
of business, are available at all times in the Department of Educa- 
tion. It is a matter of oiDinion whether it is necessar}-, on the score 
of usefulness as well as economy, for the Department of Education 
to maintain a bin-eau or go to the expense of the prejjaration of statis- 
tics, which may only be required on special occ'asions to disabuse 
the public mind as to the worthlessness of such a report as is now 
under consideration, j^i'esumably prepared for discreditable if not 
impro]ier purpose.;, and at any rate with cpiestionable motives. 

The following are copies of communications from the City Super- 
intendent of Schools, and the Borough Superintendent of Schools 
of Manhattan and The Bronx, which clearly show the inaccuracy of 
statements made in the report : 

OFi-irK.'^ OF THE Board of Educatiox, 

Park A\enue, cor. Fifty-ninth Street, 

Borough of Maxhattan, December 29, 1900. 

Hox. Milks M. O'Brien, 

Pnsidcid, Board of Education: 

Dear Sir: With reference to the "Analysis of School Expenses" 
submitted to the Merchants' Association by Mr. F. B. De Berard, 
I nuikc the following statement : 



I 



None of the figui-es i)resente(l by Mr. De Bei-ard are taken dii-ectly 
from the Annual Reports of the Cit}' Suijeiintendent of Schools. 
They have evidently been taken from the Annual Reports of the 
Board of Education, prepared l;)y the ^'ecretary upon statistics, so 
far as they relate to a^•( rage attendance, furnislied b\- the liorough 
officials. 

In his "Analysis" is found the following statement : 

' ' The number of jjupils enrolled is no safe index of the num- 
ber of seats required. Evening schools increase the em-oll- 
ment, but do not require more school buildings or more seats. 
, Of the 320,000 different pu]5ils who are enrolled in Manhattan 
more than 12 per cent. (38,450) are on the registers of the even- 
ing schools, and the attendance is less than one-third of those 
enrolled. There are also summer schools, ^■acation schools, 
cooking schools, and various ' fads' for special students. Whether 
the enrollment and attendance of these is included in the aggre- 
gate cannot be learned from the official i-eports. For the most 
part they do not need special facilities in excess of those provided 
for day scholars. In effect the maximum attendance of da}' 
scholars (generally reached in October and November) shows 
the minimum number of seats required, pro^-ided the seats 
are where the pupils are. The reports of the Board of Educa- 
tion do not supply the needed data. All that can be learned 
from them as to the relative school capacity, attendance and 
their increase is the following, gleaned from fragmentary data 
and detached statements in various parts of two annual re- 
ports and the current official budget. The source of each 
citation is stated. " 

There does not appear to l)e any statement either in the Report 
of the Board of Education, or in tl e Report of the City Superin- 
tendent, showing a total enrollment of 320,000 different pupils in 
Manhattan and The Bronx. Th{> mimber is e\idently made up from 
the following, from the ReiX)rt of the Board of Education, for 1898- 
1899, page 51 : 

Number of different pupils registered (Public Day Schools) 281,8-41 
Number of pupils registered in Evening Schools 38,450 



320,291 

It is implied that this amount includes also the enrollment of 
pupils in vacation and otiier schools, which is not the fact. 



8 

Relative to the increase in the average attendance and in the 
number of sittings given in the "Analysis" (Table No. 8), it is stated 
that as there were 220,931 sittings in July, 1898, and 267,000 in De- 
cember, 1900 (an estimated number), the increase during the interval 
must have been the difference, 46,069 ; and, as the average attendance 
in July, 1898, was 186,990, and in December, 1900, 213,866 (also an 
estimated number), the increase in the average attendance was only 
26,876. The figures in the records in the office of the City Superin- 
tendent show a very different condition in the Boroughs of Man- 
hattan and The Bronx: 

Average daily attend- Sittings, 

ance for the year. Julv 1. 

1897-1898 187,883 218,272 

1898-1899 207,470 232,931' 

1899-1900 219,932 247,635 

Average daily attendance 

for the month. Sittings. 

November, 1900 236,803 251,657 

Increase, July, 1898-Nov.,1900 48,920 33,385 

Excess of increase in average attendance over increase in sittings, 
15,535. 

Number of seats in excess of average daily attendance for the 
month of November, 14,854. 

Number of pupils per 1,000 seats, 941. 

It is stated by Mr. De Berard, in his letter to the Commercial 
Advertiser, that the aggregate number of daj^s of attendance of all 
pupils during the year .1899-1900, 42,027,584, "embraces all classes 
of pupils except those of Corporate Schools." This statement is 
untrue in so far as it relates to " all classes of pupils." This number 
includes only pupils in attendance upon the regular public day 
schools, and does not include attendants in "Summer Schools, Vaca- 
tion Schools, Cooking Schools, and various 'fads' for special stu- 
dents." Neither does it include attendance in Corporate Schools 
or in Evening Schools. It is stated that " the average daih^ attend- 
ance is obtained by dividing the annual attendance by the number 
of session days." The printed report of the City Superintendent 
will show that the schools of Manhattan and The Bronx were actually 
in session 191 days. The aggregate number of days' attendance 



9 

divided by this number gives the average daily attendance for the 
year as 220,039, while the average daily attendance for the year by 
schools gives a total of 219,932, a difference of 107 accounted for 
by a fraction, more or less, in each of the details. From this number, 
220,039, Mr. De Berard deducts the number of evening scholars in 
attendance the previous year, namely, 12,401. Whether this com- 
putation was made by Mr. De Berard through ignorance or through 
malice, I do not undertake to say. 

Attention is called by Mr. De Berard to the fact that in the Annual 
Report of the Board of Education for the year ending July 31, 1899, 
three apparently contradictory amounts are given as to the average 
attendance in Manhattan and The Bronx, as follows: 

Page 16, 202,133. 

Pages 52-57, 209,692 (should be 209,924). 

Pages 110-124, 231,277 (should be 219,626). 

These apparent discrepancies arise from the fact that each of the 
amounts given is computed on a different basis from the other two. 
The first, 202,133, is taken from the Monthly Report of the City 
Superintendent for June, 1899, and is the average daily attendance 
forthemonth,hasedonihc aggregate days' attendance for that month. 
The second and third amounts, obtained by adding (incorrectly) 
the average attendance for the several schools given separately in 
the report, were furnished to the Secretary by the borough officials, 
and are doubtless the average daily attendance for different months. 

The distribution of the General and Special Funds is not based on 
any of the data found in the Report of the Board of Education, 
though Mr. De Berard seems to think so. It is based (in part) upon 
the aggregate days of attendance of all pupils in the regular public 
day schools, a record of which is kept in the office of the Oty Super- 
intendent, and which is made from the sworn monthly statements 
of each of the principals. These sworn statements give the actual 
attendance for each day the schools were in session during each 
month of the school year. 

I have nothing to add to, and nothing to detract from, the follow- 
ing statement, which I caused to be published in the papers a few 
days ago -with regard to Mr. De Berard's "Analysis": 



10 

"The statement published in the morning papers by Mr, 
Frederic B. De Berard, a so-called expert, employed by the 
Merchants' Association, with regard to public school accounts, 
I contains the following sentence : ' During the last school year, 
although about 15,000 new seats were supplied, the attendance 
was less than the previous year. ' This statement is not true. 
The average attendance in the school year 1899-1900 exceeded 
the average attendance in the school year 1898-1899 by 19,314 
for the entire city. The subjoined table shows the increase 
in average attendance by boroughs and also the )iet increase 
in sittings: 

1898-99. 1899-00. Inc. in Net inc. 

A V. attend- Av. attend- A v. attend- in Sit- 

ance. anee. ance. tings. 

Manhattan and Bronx 207,470 219,932 12,462 14,704 

Brooklyn 124,200 129,175 4,975 2,297 

Queens 19,895 21,227 1,332 1,541 

Richmond 7,332 7,877 545 125 

Totals 358,897 378,211 19,314 18,667 

" It seems extraordinary that a respectable body of men like the 
Merchants' Association should give to the public statements 
that are false, for the purpose of discrediting the school svstem 
of the city. " 

As I have shown, Mr. De Bei'ard has falsified the public school 
statistics by subtracting from the attendance on day schools the 
attendance on evening schools. This fact is what is shown by a con- 
sideration of the context from Avhich my original excerpt was taken 
— a context which Mr. De Berard claims I did not consider. 

Very respectfully, 

[Signed] William H. Maxwell, 

City Superintendent of Schools. 



11 

I Offick of HoRuueiH Supfkintexdkxt of Schools, 

Paik Avenue and Fifty-ninth Street, 
Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx, 

Nkw York, Janwirij 4, 1901. 

Hon. Miles M. O'Brien, 

President Board of Education, Boroughs of Manhattan and The 
Bronx : 

Dear Sir: I have receivetl a copy of a leport to the Board of 
Directors of the Merchants' Association of New York, under date of 
December 19, 1900, entitled 'Analysis of School Expenses of the 
City of New York." 

I have examined the report with great care, and find that the divi- 
sion of the subjects is such that an answer to almost all of the state- 
ments will be made, naturally, by the departments to which they 
specially refer. I find, however, one portion of the report under the 
head of "School Accommodations" which would seem to call for 
special discussion l)y myself, on behalf of the Boi-oughs of Manhattan 
and The Bronx. 

On page 19 I find the following statement: 

' ' For the most part they do not need special facilities in 
excess of those provided for da}' scholars. In effect the max- 
inuim attendance of day scholars (generally reached in October 
and November) shows the minimum number of seats rec^uired, 
j^rovided the seats are where the ]5upils are." 

This method of determining the minimum number of seats re- 
quired, is absolutely incorrect. The number of ))U])ils in any one 
grade in a school \\'\\\ vai'y from month to month, and the variation, 
especially in the lower primary grades, is very great indeed. These 
variations in the different grades in a school are not coincident, the 
attendance in one grade ])ossibly being at its maximum, when the 
attendance in some other grade is at its mininnmi. Hence it follows 
that the minimum mmiber of seats required in any one school is the 
sum of the maximum a tendances in the sejiarate grades in that 



12 

school, no matter at what different periods the maxima maj^ occnr. 
In like manner the minimum number of seats required for any 
borough would be the sum of the minimum numbers of seats as 
calculated for the separate schools. 
On page 20 appears the following statement : 

"It appears from the foregoing data that the number of 
sittings available keeps well ahead of the demand for them." 

The foregoing data refers to those given in Table No. 8, page 19. 
Even if we were to concede the claim that a comparison of the num- 
ber of seats with the average attendance would determine the suf- 
ficiency of supply of sittings, the conclusion expressed in the state- 
ment above quoted would depend for its validity upon the accuracy 
of the numbers given in the table. 

But these numbers are very incorrectly reported, as will be seen 
from a comparison with the official figures, which will be found be- 
low. An example of the lack of accuracy in the reported statistics 
is to be found on the last line of the table, which would appear to 
give figures for the calendar year 1900. The latest report of the 
year was for the month of November, and no average attendance 
had been calculated for the year. 

The table reports 267,000 seats, and 213,866 average day attend- 
ance, but the number of regular sittings in all the schools on Novem- 
ber 30, 1900, was but 251,657, while the average day attendance for 
November was no less than 236 803. 

CORRECTION OF STATISTICS IN TABLE NO. 8. 

Total Seats. Average Day Attendance, 

July 31, 1898, 218,272 187,883 (For year 1897-1898). 

July 31, 1899, 232,931 207,470 (For year 1898-1899). 

July 31, 1900, 247,635 219,932 (For year 1899-1900). 

Nov. 30, 1900, 251 ,657 236,803 (For month of November) . 

A comparison of the average attendance for the month of Novem- 
ber with the number of sittings, shows that there is a difference of 
but 14,854, a difference that is absolutely insignificant. It must be 
kept in mind that the average attendance is the mean number of 
pupils in attendance, and does not in any way indicate the addi- 



13 

tional number of pupils who are in attendance on the most favorable 
days. When it is understood that in many classes there is not a 
single absence in a week, and in a goodly proportion of the classes 
there is a perfect -attendance for a month, the weakness of the con- 
clusion drawn by the compiler of the report must be evident. 

The number on register at the 6nd of November was 253,189, 
almost 2,000 in excess of the number of regular sittings, and, further- 
more, the published report of the City Superintendent for the month 
of October, found in Journal of the Board of Education for Novem- 
ber, 1900, states that no less than 21,646 pupils were taught in "part 
time-' classes. Yet the framer of the report concludes that "the 
number of sittings available keeps well ahdad of the demands for 
them." Respectfully, 

[Signed] John Jasper, 

Borough Superintendent. 



SPECIFICATION 3. 

That estimates submitted by the Board of Education to the 
Board of Estimate and Apportionment are in part based upon 
inaccurate data which overstate the average attendance; that 
the estimates for supplies assume the previous year's outlay 
as a correct basis, when it is in fact incorrect and excessive; 
that the estimates of probable increase in attendance are like- 
wise excessive; and that a progressive and cumulative increase 
in the annual outlay for supplies may be affected without being 
subjected to real scrutiny and without obvious appearance of 
disproportion." 
That estimates submitted by the Board of Education are in part 
based upon inaccurate data which overstate the average attendance, 
is untrue. At the period of the year when it becomes the duty 
of the Board of Education to submit its estimates, it is impossible 
to give accurately the attendance of the current fiscal year, for the 
best of all reasons, the fiscal year has not passed. Therefore, so 
far as the current fiscal year is concerned, the only information 



14 

that can be given is an estimate in character, of which fact the 
Board of Estimate and Apportionment is well aware. 

The statement that ' ' the estimates for supplies assume the pre- 
vious year's outlay as a correct basis, when it is in fact, incorrect 
and excessiA'e, ' ' requires some comment. 

Notwithstanding the judgment and experience contributed by 
the Board of Education as to the requirements of the school system, 
it is the common custom for the Board of Estimate and Appor- 
tiormient to reduce amounts asked for. 

It is to be assumed that the Board of Estimate and Apportion- 
ment of which the Comptroller, the chief fiscal officer of the city, 
is a member, is actuated by a reason and not a simple impulse, 
when it apportions city moneys. The Board of Education must 
therefore accept the funds placed at its disjiosal, and expend the 
same so far as they go, to the best interests of the school system. 
The Board of ]'>lucation must also accept the funds as the result 
of the deliberations, judgment and views of the Board of Estimate 
and Apportionment, as to the amounts necessary to be expended 
for the public schools. 

It ^\'oukl therefore appear to l)e j^erfectly proper for the Board of 
Education, in its next year's estimate, to assume the amount of the 
previous year's fund for supplies as a basis upon which to predicate 
its requests. Still further, the fact remains that the school sys- 
tem is not decreasing in size ; on the contrary, the school population 
is rapidlv increasing, and as a matter of pure reasoning it is logical 
to assume that such an item as "Supplies" will therefore grow 
apace. 

The statement that a progressive and cumulative increase in 
the ainuial outlay for supplies may be effected without l)eing sub- 
jected to real scrutiny, and without obvious apj^earance of dis- 
proportion is not borne out 1 )y facts, for instance : 

The amount allowed in Manhattan and The Bronx, for 

Supplies in 1898 was $542,691.78 

Supplies in 1899 was 575,253.28 

Sui^plies in 1900 was 500.000 

Sujiplies in 1901 was 600,000 

With the desire to reduce exjienses to the lowest point, the Board 



15 



of Education refrained from expending its entire approj^riation for 
supplies for 1899 and voluntai'ily reduced the aj3})ropriation of 
that year, the unexpended balance of which was utilized for pur- 
poses provided for by a special act of the Legislature, viz.: the 
deficit in teachers' salaries in other boroughs. The effect of this 
frugality has been painfully felt during the current year (1900) 
for the Board of Estimate and Apportionment also reduced the 
amount asked for by a large sum, and schools have suffered ac- 
cordingly. A glance at the figures will therefore demonstrate 
that the " progressiAc and cumulative increase" referred to in 
the report is largel>- imaginati^•e, and the average increase not 
abnormal when conditions and requirements are considered. 



SPECIFICATIOX 4. 



"That the current estimates for supplies, which assume 
last year's outlays as a basis, allo\\- $3.38^ per capita for neAv 
scholars, while the actual per capita cost last year was but 
$2.02, according to the pul)]ished reports of the Board of Ed- 
ucation." 
The foregoing statement appears to be largeh" surmised, and not 
wholly founded on the facts. Such facts as haxe been u.-ed have 
been distorted and misapplied. 

It is untrue that the provision in the piinted Inulget for sup- 
plies for new schools and additions to be opened during the xeav 
1901 is based upon the per capita cost for supplies as furnished to 
the schools during the previous year, and for the following reasons: 
That the cost of equipping new buildings, etc., with supplies is 
necessarily a more important and costly transaction than the usual 
supply of materials required for an old school during the year. In 
the equipping of a new school it is necessary to provide certain 
articles and educational appliances for permanent use, such as 
globes, maps, charts, and other items too numerous to mention. 
A school once equipped with these special supplies, can then be 
maintained at a less armual rate of cost, because the renewal of 
such items occurs only at long intervals. It requires no great amount 
of business discernment to understand that the initial cost of 



16 

enlargement of any system is occasioned by the purchase of plant, 
and that regular maintenance costs less. 

The average cost of equipping elementary schools in the former 
City of New York, now the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx, 
has been found to be about $3.38^, assuming that the proportion 
of Grammar and Primary classes are about equal. This fact has 
been ascertained by the careful examination of the records of the 
Board, from time to time, by the Committee on Supplies, and the 
officers in charge of the Supplies Department, assisted by appU- 
cation of past experience to the anticipated requirements of the 
system, and guided by the discretion in the management of its 
affairs with which the Board is vested. 

Attention is particularly called to the following (see top of 
page 8 of report). 

Manhattan (average attendance fiscal year) : 

Day Schools Nos. 1 to 169 (aggregates not given; 

deduced by adding columns of details on pages 110 

to 119 214,946 

High Schools, Training School and Truant School 

(page 123) 3,930 

Evening Schools (page 17, for school year ending 

July 31, 1899) 12,401 

Total Manhattan 231,277 

The report (pp. 7 and 8) contains a complaint that, to ascertain 
the average attendance of scholars, about 500 separate items must 
be collated from three separate schedules, isolated from each other, 
and distiibuted through 25 pages; 16 long columns must be added, 
etc., etc. That the manufacture of such statistics was laborious 
and arduous, and that the results therefrom are misleading and 
mischievous, cannot be denied. An examination of pages 110 to 
119 of the annual report of 1899, shows that the figures of average 
attendance submitted, viz: 214,946, do not appear to be borne out 
by an addition thereof, which appears to aggregate 215,696. At- 
tention is particularly called to the fact that the quotation herein- 
before made shows that the compiler of the report has deliberately 
intermixed figures and statistics belonging to the fiscal and school 
years. 

Attention is also called to the fact that for the purpose of sho^^•ing 



17 

a difference between equipping new elementary day schools with 
supplies ($3.38^), and the alleged cost of supplies for schools 
already established ($2.02), the report has included not only 
the alleged attendance in the elementary day schools, but also figures 
representing High Schools, Training Schools, Truant Schools and 
Evening Schools. 

Following the quotation hereinbefore referred to, the report 
contains another set of figures applied to the Borough of Brooklyn, 
wth the fiscal and school years again intermixed. Immediately 
following appears the statement: 

"The average attendance cited above was the basis for the 
distribution of supplies; it is for the fiscal year, January- 
December, 1899." 

In Aiew of the positive statement that the figures submitted 
by the statistician are for the fiscal year, it is almost needless to say 
that the presence of data appertaining to the school year at once 
demonstrates inaccuracy and disestabUshes the statistical fabric. 

In the initial equipment of a new school building it is necessary 
that each grammar pupil shall have the following articles: 

1 Arithmetic $ .50 

1 Geography .72 

1 Grammar . .... .50 

1 History . . . . , .65 

2 Supplementary Readers ... .50 
2 Copy Books 12 

1 Grammar Book .... .40 

2 German Copy Books 12 

25 Pencils 25 

50 Pens .10 

1 Ruler 01 

1 Speller 21 

A chilji will require at least 20 pads for use 
throughovit the year, . . . .33 

$4.41 

Besides the foregoing, each room should be furnished with : 



18 

1 Set of Maps, costing . . . $36.00 

1 Globe 5.00 

1 doz. Charts, at 36c. each . . . 4.32 
6 doz. enamelled Cups . . . 2.16 

6 doz. Camel's Hair Brushes, at 24c. per doz. 1.44 
3 doz. Compasses .... 3.00 

1 Set Drawing Models ... 9.40 

3 Wash Basins, at SI. 80 per doz. . . .45 
3 Scrap Baskets, at $3.08 per doz. . .77 

1 Call Bell .16 

1 Pencil Sharpener .... 3.00 
1 Teacher's Memorandum Book . .20 

1 Class Book 35 

1 Teacher's New Record Book . . .41 
1 Inkstand, Teacher's Desk . . .30 

In addition to the foi-egoing, the children must be su])plied with 
cb-aA^ing paper, and if it is a girls' school, sewing materials. In the 
general fitting up of the school, a complete set of records, ex- 
clusiA^e of those enumerated, will be necessary, a bell for principal's 
desk, yard bells, crayons, drinking ^•essels, pointers, clothes poles, 
blackboard rubbers, blackboard rulers, and janitor's supplies, etc. 

In the initial equipment of a new school building it is neces- 
sary that each primary jDupil sliall have the following articles: 



1 Reader, 


$.18 


30 Pencils, 


..30 


30 Pens, 


.05 


2 Copy Books, 


.10 


1 doz. Pads, 


.19 


1 Music book, 


.20 



.02 



Besides the foregoing, each room should be furnished with 

1 Burt's Primary Reading Chart, 
1 Set of Primary Language Studies, 
12 Charts, at .36 each, 
1 Map of the United States, 
1 Hemisphere, 
1 Map of New York Citv, 
1 Globe, . . ■ . 

1 Teacher's Memorandum Book, 



$12 


.00 


12 


.50 


4 


32 


2 


25 


2 


25 


1 


00 


5 


25 




20 



1!) 

1 Class Book, .... .85 

1 Teacher's New Record Book, . .41 

1 Inkstand for every teacher's desk, .30 

1 Pencil Sluir])enei', . . . 3.00 

1 Call Bell .16 

3 Wash I^asins. at $1 .80 per dozen, . . 45 

3 Scrap l^askets, at S3.08 per dozen, .77 

1)1 addition to the foresioing, the hitjher <;:rades nmst be fnrnished 
with drawing paper, color books, and if it is a girls' scho(»l, se\ving 
materials. In the general fitting uj) of the school, a complete 
set of records, exclusi\e of those enumei'ated, will be necessary, a 
bell for ])rincipars desk, yard l^ells, crayons, drinking vessels 
pointers, clothes poles, black1;)oard rul)bers, blackljoard inilers, 
and janito]-'s supplies, etc. 

A casual inspection of the foregoing items and figin-es shows that 
the average struck, viz: $3.38|, is very low. It is only by the 
transferring from time to time of the permanent appliances from 
one classroom to another, that the initial cost is kept down. This 
operation is often attended by inconvenience and delay, but it 
is necessitated by the determination of the Conuiiittce on Supplies 
to so shai)C its expenditures as to keep within the financial limits 
defined l:)y the Board of I'].stirruite and Apportionment. 

SPECIFIC.VTIOX 5. 

"That the current estimates for supplies assume an increase 
in attendance in Manhattan about three times as great as the 
normal iucrea.se and four times as great as the officially stated 
increase of the last school j'ear; that a large part of the in- 
creased attendance thus assumed and provided for is deduced 
not from previous attendance and annual increase of popula- 
tion, but from the capacity of new school houses, w'hich will be 
occupied in large part by scholars already enrolled and attend- 
ing the public schools, 'in temporary rented premises, which 
the new buildings will displace ; that while official data of school 
population and its increase show an estimate of 5 per cent, 
increase in attendance to be excessively liberal, the estimates 
for supplies ask for 26 per cent, increase in the appropriation 
to provide for the increased attendance." 



20 

The foregoing statement is disingenuous, inasmuch as it seeks to 
include as a matter of average attendance, the equipment of ne^ 
school buildings, with special supplies. New buildings cannot be 
equipped with supplies on a basis of average attendance; the only 
practical and satisfactory way is to provide supplies sufficient to 
cover the seating capacity — in other words, to cover the possible 
maximima enrollment. How could it be possible to base the require- 
ments in a new school building upon average attendance, when the 
building has never been tenanted? The assumption that new 
buildings displace temporary rented premises is not always connect; 
on the contrary, it is more frequently otherwise. In fixing the loca- 
tion of a projected new building, the existence of rented premises is 
necessarily considered, as is also the overcrowded condition of other 
nearby school buildings.- 

New buildings rapidly fill when opened, and their existence, while 
relieving congestion somewhat, does not appear to have material 
effect in reducing the number of rented premises. This indicates 
per se, that the school population is increasing apace, and that while 
congestion is relieved from time to time in certain localities, there 
still exists a factor of arrearage, mainly accounted for by children 
in part-time classes, which arrearage is being only slowly reduced 
owing to scarcity of funds wherewith to buy sites and erect buildings 
thereon. The foregoing is advanced in order to show that the state- 
ment made " that new school houses will be occupied in large part 
by scholars already enrolled " is incorrect when regarded from a prac- 
tical standpoint, and could only have been made from a cursory and 
incomplete examination of conditions, and an incompetent and crude 
■idea of current school affairs. 

In order to show the fallacy of the argument that the estimates 
for supplies ask for 26 per cent, increase in the appropriation to pro- 
vide for the increased attendance, the following is submitted: 



SUPPLIES, MANHATTAN AND THE BRONX. 

1899 Asked for in estimate, . . . .$602,824.00 

1898 " """... . 542,691.78 

Increase, 1899 over 1898, . . $60,132.22 



21 

Asked for about 11 per cent, far all purposes. 

1899 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- 

tionment, .... $575,253.28 

1898 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- 

tionment, 542,691.78 

Increase, 1899 over 1898, . . . $ .32,561.50 

Actual increase received, about 6 per 
cent, for all purposes. 

1900 Asked for in estimate, . . . $574 752 59 

1899 " " - 602',824^00 

Asked for less than previous year. . . $28,071.48 

1899 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- 

tionment, $575,253.28 

1900 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- 

tionment, 500,000.00 

Received less than previous year. . . $75,253.28 

1901 Asked for in estimate, .... $631,817 08 

1900 '' - - .... 574^752 .'52 

$57,064.56 
Asked for an increase, 1901 over 1900, 
of about 10 per cent, for all purposes. 

1901 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- 

tionment, $600,000.00 

1900 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- 
tionment, 500,000.00 

Increase 1901 over 1900, . . . $100,000.00 

Actual increase 20 per cent, for all purposes. 

Attention is called to the fact, that of the appropriation of 1899 
over $100,000 was voluntarily rehnquished and applied by authority 
of statute to the deficit in teachers' salary accounts in the Boroughs 
of Queens and Richmond. In granting a greater percentage of in- 
crease in 1901, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment is merely 
ameliorating the conditions occasioned by frugality in 1899, and 
shortage in 1900. 



22 

Attention is also called to the fact that any increase in an estimate 
over that of the previous year is detailed, and shows per se the objects 
for which it is proposed to expend the additional money I'equested. 
It is manifestly unjust to arbitrarily assume that increases in appro- 
priations are intended to cover only increased attendance of pupils. 
It seems incomprehensible that any organization of progressive 
nature, or person with normal instincts, should advance such a 
theory ; if such were to obtain, educational advancement would stop, 
and increased expenditures would only mean provision for the addi- 
tional number of scholars whose ages entitled them to enter the 
public schools during the fiscal year covered by the appropriation . 

Summer schools, playgrounds, gymnasiums, kindergartens, work- 
shops, kitchens, etc., require the installation of apparatus, and 
the furnishing of supplies completely outside of the usual routine 
materials required for the ordinary elementary day-school classes. 

It can be stated emphatically, without fear of contradiction, that 
the citizens of New York would not submit to be shorn of the advan- 
tages of modern methods of education, which have been and are 
being added to the school system from time to time; nor would they 
submit, without complaint, to fall very far behind the plane of cities 
of lesser magnitude. 

Attention is called to the fact that in cases where the city author- 
ities fail to provide funds to carry out a certain object, it is not 
unusual for the Board of Education to renew its request in the esti- 
mate for the next year. This fact may account, in part, for the sug- 
gestion made by the analyst as to "progressive and cumulative 
.increase." 



SPECinCATIOX 6. 

" That the outlay for general supiDlies, repairs, fuel, lighting 
and janitor serATce is extremely disproportionate, as between 
the Borough of Manhattan and the Borough of Brooklvn, on the 
basis of equivalent results or equal services, and that there is a 
similar disproportion as between the various schools, especially 
in Manhattan." 
The subject of general su]:)plies has been treated of in cxtenso in 



23 

answering the preceding specifications, that it liardly appears nec- 
essary to make any further statements. In the matter of general 
repairs, the report seeks to show by the compilation of figures, that 
"the entire schedule of general repairs deserves the severest criti- 
cism. The most cursory study of it shows that it readih might, and 
probably does, cover enormous waste." 

To bear out this remarkable statement, the compiler of the report 
advances the following statistics (page 9 of repoit) : 

TABLE 2. 

GENERAL REPAIRS, DISTRIBUTION OF OUTLAY. 



Less than $500, 

ii a ii 

$500 and less than $1,000, 

ii >( u ii ,i 

$1,000 and less than $2,000, 

it II it it ii 

$2,000 and less than $4,000, 

ii ii ii ii ii 

$4,000 and less than $6,000, 

ii ii a ti (< 

Over $6,000, 

By ])rocess of arithmetic, it would appear from the above that the 
item requested for Manhattan was $277,087; as a matter of fact, it 
was $273,830. The verifying committee appears to have overlooked 
the discrepancy of some few^ thousand dollars. In order that there 
shall be a clear understanding on the subject, it should be stated 
that the Board of Education asked for 1901 under the appropria- 
tion heading of "General Repair^" the following: 

Manhattan and The Bronx, $493,537.75 

Brooklyn, . . 392,441.34 



Borough. 


No. of 


Average 




Schools. 


Amount. 


Manhattan, 


18 


$337.00 


Brooklyn, 


113 


88.50 


Manhattan, 


46 


772.00 


Brooklyn, 


3 


818.00 


Manhattan, 


54 


1,390.00 


Brooklyn, 


12 


1,295.00 


Manhattan, 


42 


2,537.00 


Brooklyn, 


12 


2,477.00 


Manhattan, 


10 


4,556.00 


Brooklyn, 


2 


4,585.00 


Manhattan, 


1 


8,335.00 



Total, $885,979.09 

In order to show the purposes for wliich it was i^roposed to ex- 
pend this mone}' , the Department of Education, in its usual printed 
estimate submitted schedules of details, of which the following are 
the summarized items (also printed) : 



24 



MANHATTAN AND THE BRONX. 



Item, General repairs, .... 
'' Sanitary repairs, .... 
" Heating repairs, .... 
" Electric installation, 
" Salaries, Inspectors and Draughtsmen, 



$273,830.00 

106,620.00 

42,325.00 

23,500.00 

47,262.75 



,537.75 



BROOKLYN. 

Item, General repairs, . 
" Sanitary repairs, 
" Heating and ventilating, 
" Electric installation, 

"Fireproof stair work (special) 
" Materials for workshop, 
" Salaries, Inspectors and Draughtsmen, 

Workmen, .... 
" Clerk, 



and 



$96,885.00 
72,535.00 
36,405.00 
24,875.00 
63,800.00 
16,000.00 

80,141.34 
1,800.00 

$392,441.34 



If we take the compiler's own figures, we shall assume that the 
number of schools are as follows : 



Manhattan and The Bronx, 
Brooklyn, 



171 
142 



Now let us take the entire appropriation for each of the Boroughs 
mentioned, and divide by the number of schools as computed by the 
compiler. The follomng will be the result: 

Manhattan and The Bronx, $493,537. 75-=- 171 =$2,886 + average. 
Brooklyn, 392,441.34^142= 2,763+ average. 

The apparent difference is about $123 per building, but on the 
basis of "equivalent results or equal services" (as suggested by the 
analyst, and verified by the committee), Brooklyn schools are ac- 
tually costing more in proportion than in Manhattan, owing to 
difference in size of buildings and parsimony in the expenditure of 
money prior to 'consolidation," which facts are clearly demon- 
strated among other things in the following communication from the 
Su]-)orintendent of School Buildings: 



25 

Department of Education, City of New York, 
Building Bureau, Park Avenue and Fifty-ninth Street, 
Borough of Manhattan, 

New York, January 4, 1901. 

Hon. Miles M. O'Brien, 

President Board of Education: 

Dear Sir: In compliance with the instructions received from 
Mr. Richard H. Adams, Chairman of the Committee on Buildings, 
I herewith transmit to you the following report regarding certain 
allegations made in a pamphlet entitled "Analysis of School Ex- 
penses of the City of New York," issued by the Merchants' Associa- 
tion of New York, December 19, 1900. 

An examination of the report shows most conclusively that the 
results are reached by the skillful and misleading juggling of figures, 
and what it is more important, an entire separation of figures from 
the facts. 

Report, page 5: 

" The accounts of the Board of Education are not subject to 
audit in detail by the Comptroller." 

This may be so, but they were up to May, 1900, and nothing wrong 
was found, and now the Commissioners of Accounts have full legal 
power to investigate in detail all of the financial transactions of the 
Board of Education. 

Report, page 6 : 

"The amount of outlay proper for each of these (191 school 
premises in Manhattan and 132 in Brooklyn) and (aside from 
that required for teachers) is contingent wholly upon the capa- 
city, character and equipment of the respective buildings and 
upon the number of scholars in attendance. The proper mea- 
sure of capacity is the number of sittings and classrooms." 

The above reads well, and seems to convey a truthful statement, 
but in reality it, together with all the deductions and inferences 



26 

made therefrom and further specified in tables 1 and 2, is absolutely 
worthless, and the innuendos and harsh words uncalled for, for the 
reason that in comparing the cost of repairs of the public schools of 
Manhattan with those of Brooklyn "The proper measure of capacity 
is 'not' the number of sittings" and it has always been supposed 
that e\'ery well-informed citizen of Manhattan and Brooklyn was 
aware of these facts. 

Take, for instance, the first fifty school buildings (P. S. 1 to 50, in- 
clusive) in each borough, it will be found 

1. That the a^'erage size of the Brooklyn school buildings is thirty 
classrooms, while those of Manhattan are twenty per cent, greater. 

This, then, is the real measure of capacity as to sittings. The 
school buildings of Manhattan are, however, larger in another way, 
which requires funds for maintenance or repairs, but without any 
increase in the number of classrooms, l^eing 

2. That 25 per cent, of those enumerated in Manhattan have a 
fifth story devoted to physical and manual training, raising the 
average size of the buildings l)y 6^ per cent. 

3. That 10 per cent, of those enumerated in Manhattan have roof 
playgrounds, not found in those of Brooklyn. 

4. The school buildings of Manhattan almost without an exception 
are built with a cellar o'r sub-basement, in which is placed the heat- 
ing and ventilating ])lant, coal, etc., but not used by the pupils, 
while the entire first story, located above the street level, is used for 
indoor i)la>'rooms. Contrast this with the Brooklyn schools built 
for the most part without cellars ; the heating apparatus, coal bins 
and children's playgrounds being placed in the one basement. 

In otlier words, al)out 25 per cent, of the school buildings of Man- 
hattan consist of six floor surfaces at different levels, which we will 
designate as units, i. e. (a) cellar — heating apparatus, coal storage, etc. ; 
(b) 1st stor>' used as indoor playroom; (c) 2d, (d) 3d and (e) 4th 
stories, each divided into and used as classrooms, which alone indi- 
cate the capacity of the buildim/; (f) 5th story, used for physical and 
manual training — total of six units. The number of classrooms in 
three of these units is under normal conditions, the only measure of 
capacity of the structure as ai)i:)lied to sittings. 

The other 75 per cent, of the Iniildings ha\-e as many units as floors 
used for classrooms, plus the first story playroom and plus the cellar, 



27 

therefore if the biiikUug consists of two, three or four stories and 
cellar or sub-basement, then in each case two of the units or stories 
must be deducted from the classroom space Ijcfore the measure of 
•capacity as to sittings can be ol^tained. 

In Brooklyn there is as a rule onl}- the basement of fiist story to be 
deducted from the classroom space. 

If this be not sufficienth' comprehensive, tlien the following table 
must be not only comprehensive but conclusive that the statement 
made in ])aragrai)h 6, page 4, of the report 

'' That the outlay for . . . repairs, ... is extremeh' 
dispropcn-tionate, as 13et^\•een the Borough of Manhattan and 
the Boi-ough of Brooklyn upon the basis of equivalent results 
or equal ser\ices, and that there is a similar disproportion as 
Ijetween \'ari()us schools, especially in Manhattan." 
is utterly false and misleading. 

Taking, for example, the first fift>' schools in eacli Borough : 

riciu'ral Reiiairs. Proportionate 

(Total am"t wanted for Floor Area First Allowance. 

all the schools.) Fifty Schools. Gen'l Repairs. 

Manliattan and 

The Bronx, $493,407 2,688,000 sq. ft. $129,164 

Brooklyn, 219,610 987.292 " 83,186 

This same proportion follows throughout and proves that it really 
costs more to repair the Brooklyn schools than those in Manhattan. 

The reason that it costs more in proportion to repair Brooklyn 
than Manhattan schools is the fact that for years prior to consolida- 
tion the old city of Broolclyn did not appropriate more than 20 per 
cent, of the funds rec|uired each year to maintain the schools in 
proper repair, and therefore the l^urden uow falls on the old cit}' 
of New York. 

On page 10 of the report is table 3 gi\iiig cost of general repairs, 
new schools, preceded by the words 

''The table below shews the cost of repairing new school l)uild- 
ings in Manhattan. This is about twice the a\erage alloA\ance for 
repairing old buildings in Brooklyn." 

Then follows the ta])le giving sixteen schools, which are (pioted as 



28 

given in the statement, school for school, and following each the 
explanation of the proposed expenditures : 











No. of 


First year of 


General 


Sani- 




Class- 


Service. P. S. 


Repairs. 


tary. 


Heat. 


rooms. 


Ending July, 1899, 42 


$385 


$160 


$250 


42 



This gives a total of $795 for one year's maintenance of a building 
used by over 2,000 children during the school year, also for evening 
school during the winter term, one evening play center, and a sum- 
mer school. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending July, 1899, 153 $1,000 $160 $150 14 

The sum required is for general repairs and certain changes that 
have been found to be desirable in the playgrounds, boiler and coal 
rooms ; also for the erection of sheds to the closets. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending July, 1899, 158 $1,085 $150 $310 48 

Total of $1,545 — to be expended in repairing a building covering 
an area of 17,727 square feet, exclusive of yards, and five stories and 
cellar in height, being used by 2,227 day-school pupils and also for a 
vacation playground. The amount actually thought to be necessary 
to paint and otherwise renovate inside and out was $3,085, but this 
was arbitrarily cut down , as the total amount of the budget ran too 
high. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending July, 1899, 160 $1,585 $150 $300 39 

Total of $2,053 — to be expended in keeping in repair a building 
covering 14,373 square feet of area, exclusive of yards, and contain- 
ing five stories, cellar and roof playground, being used b}' 2,216 day 
pupils, also for vacation school, vacation playground and evening 
play center. The original figure was $3,000, but was arbitrarily 
reduced as was that for P. S. 158. 

First year of .service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending Dec, 1899, 157 $500 $575 $200 45 

Total of $1,275 — This building coAers an area of 15,760 square 



29 

feet, containing five stories and cellar, and does not receive the wear 
and tear of those in other parts of the city. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms 

Ending Dec, 1899, 165 S385 $185 S300 45 

Total of $870. This building covers an area of 18,612 square feet, 
containing five stories and cellar, and, like P. S. 157, does not suffer 
from the wear and tear as do P. S. 158 and 160. 

Fir.st year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending Dec, 1899, 166 $3,435 $250 $260 39 

Total, $3,945. The bulk of which is necessary to erect a retaining 
wall across the rear and ends of the school plot not provided for 
in the construction of the building owing to a defect in the engineer's 
survey. The plot is 250 feet by 100 feet, the building covering an 
area of 14,252 square feet, five stories high with cellar. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending Dec, 1899, 159 $585 $250 $490 48 

Total, $1,325. The building covers an area of 19,090 square feet, 
and is five stories in height, and besides being used by da}- school, 
is also used as a vacation playground and evening school. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending Dec, 1899. 164 $650 $150 $225 21 

Total, $1,025. The building is four stories high, and the most of 
the sum required will be for the erection of iron railings to protect 
the propert}' on the north and west sides. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending Dec, 1899, 40 $585 $150 $270 29 

Total, $1,005. The building covers an area of 11,250 square feet, 
and contains a cellar, five stories and a roof playground. It is used 
as a day and evening school. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending Dec, 1899, 167 $1,500 $150 $275 30 

Total, $1,925. The building occupies an entire block. The most 
of the funds required will be for improvements made necessary by 



30 

the regulating and grading of the street at the rear, done since the 
building was completed, and for the protection of the property^ 
building approaches, etc., when the street at the north is regulated 
and graded during the present year. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending Dec, 1899, 173 $500 $150 .... 30 

Total of $650. A sum not more than sufficient to keep the build- 
ing in repair. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classroom&. 

Ending Dec, 1899, 169 $500 $150 $250 30 

Total of $900 — for general repairs and slight changes needed through 
change in departments. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending Dec, 1900, 44 $285 $100 $100 20 

Total of $485 — but this is not for the new building, for which noth- 
ing has been asked, but for the old one in North Moore Street. 

First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending Dec, 1900, 174 $385 $150 .... 24 

Total of $535. The building is five stories high with roof play- 
ground, and will be used for regular day pupils and vacation schools. 

First year of .service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. 

Ending Dec, 1900, 109 $85 $135 $50 48 

Total of $270— not for new P. S. 109, as stated, but for the old 
building, nothing being asked for the new school. 

The sum total for all the repairs noted is $19,895, which is one-half 
of one per cent, of the cost of the buildings ($3,966,678), exclusive 
of land and furniture, and if there be deducted from the sum for 
repairs an amount necessary to provide for matters outside of gen- 
eral repairs, such as the retaining wall, etc., the percentage will be 
greatly reduced. 

It will thus be seen that figures as given in the statement are worth- 
less without facts, and the facts herewith submitted were at the dis- 
posal of the Board of Estimate antl Apportionment as they were of 
the Board of Education. 

The compiler of the ])amphlet foi- the Mei-chants' Association 



31 

could have avoided making an exhibition of his ignorance and the 
worthlessness of his conclusions, had he ajiplied for information on 
the subject, which he never did of this Bureau. Had he done so, 
such information would have been as cheerfully furnished to him 
as it is to all applicants, without stopping to inquire what the motive 
might be which prompted the request. 

Respectfully, 

[Signed] C. B. J. Sxyder, 

Superintendent of School Buildings. 

The report attempts to show by segregating one item of the 
appropriation into groups, as follows: 

1. Amounts less than $500. 

2. " of $ 500 and less than $1,000. 

3. " of 1,000 " " 2,000. 

4. '' of 2,000 " " 4,000. 

5. " of 4,000 " " 5,000. 

6. " over 6,000 

that the proportionate outlay for the items cited is greater in 
Manhattan than in Brooklyn. Note well the fact that the only 
seeming important discrepancy of any account, as a matter of 
statistics, is found in the groups of schools in which less than 
$500 appears as the proposed expenditure in any one case. 

It seems incredible that the compiler of the report and the com- 
mittee of verification in their examination of the printed estimate 
of the Department of Education and the particular item of General 
Repairs for the Borough of Brooklyn, failed to ascertain and report 
that a workshop has been in existence in Brooklyn for many years 
and workmen are employed in connection therewith, to make 
many of the minor repairs in the schools in that Borough. It is 
equally as remarkable that they failed to see the item "for ma- 
terials for work.shops, $16,000," and the printed list of the names 
of the employees in the workshop, with their salaries appended. 
If such fact had been taken into account, no such conclusions could 
have been drawn. 

If the statement made was intentional, it manifests a desire to 



32 

distort and misrepresent facts. If the statement made -was un- 
intentional, it shows per sc the absence of knowledge of facts on 
the part of the compiler and the danger of acceptance by the public 
of irresponsible and misleading gratuitous information. 

Your attention is called to the following remarks regarding the 
current budget at top of page 9 of the report: 

" The account of General Repairs is wholly blind." 
' ' It cannot be analyzed. ' ' 

"The entire schedule of General Repairs deserves the 
severest criticism." 

"The most cursory study of it shows that it readily, 
might, and probably does, cover enormous waste. ' ' 
The account for General Repairs is wholly clear, and the esti- 
mate contains as much information as it is possible to give, unless 
whole copies of the plans and specifications were printed and sub- 
mitted. That it can be analyzed is evident from the summary 
statement hereinbefore submitted. That there is plenty of ma- 
terial for the analyst is equall}- as clear, or it would not have been 
possible for him and the committee on verification to have man- 
ufactured such statistics, which "deserve the severest criticism" 
and condemnation. That the accoimt readily might and 'probably 
does, cover enormous waste is so puerile, nay absurd, that it bears 
its own stamp on its face. How could there be any w^aste when 
at the date of the report, and even at this time, not one dollar of 
the money has been expended or work contracted for? Analysts 
should report on matters of fact, and not conclusions as to what 
they think might occur. If there is one dollar of proposed wasteful 
expenditure in the estimate for General Repairs for 1901 it is the 
duty of the Comptroller to Anthhold the appropriation until every 
item is justified. There will be no difficulty as to their justification. 
Attention is called to the statement 

"that the account of General Repairs embodies the most 
vicious defects possible to a system of audit. It lumps together 
in one inseparable mass outlays that should be differentiated 
into separate accounts of Construction, Maintenance, Oper- 
ation, Betterment, Labor, Materials, Administration and 
similar groupings." (See page 10.) 



33 

It is absolutely untrue that the account of General Repairs is in 
one inseparable mass. On the contrary, it has been jjresented in 
the budget in analyzed form to the Board of Estimate and Ap- 
portionment. It has been hereinbefore shown, by summary state- 
ments, that the account was segregated or grouped under several 
headings, which fact has been completely ignored by the producers 
oi the report. 

Even a cursory inspection of the printed budget as presented to 
the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, Jol. Bd. of. Ed., Sept. 
26, 1900, pages 1434-1447, is sufficient to demonstrate that the state- 
ment made is deliberately false, and only one of the man}- instances 
of "straw man" to be found throughout the report. 

On the subject of Fuel and Lighting, the criticism is made ''The 
relatively greater outlay in Manhattan for fuel and lighting indicates 
waste." (Page 10.) 

Attention is particularly called to that portion of Specification 6, 
hereinbefore quoted, having reference to ''the basis of eciuivalent 
results or equal services." 

This statement is a particular instance of prejudice, and also of 
perversion and omission of facts. The analyst and committee of veri- 
fication are alleged to have examined some of the printed reports of 
the Department. From page 51 of the report of 1899, they culled 
some evening school statistics (average attendance, 12,401), and 
used the same in connection with their manipulation of alleged 
average attendance. 

If the analyst and the committee of verification had properly 
examined the annual report, and the next lines on the same page 
referred to, they would have discovered the folloM'ins: : 

MANHATTAN AND THE BRONX. 

Number of centers at which free lectures to working- 
men and workingwomen were given, . . 4'8 
Number of lectures delivered, .... 1,923 
Total attendance, 519,411 

They would not have discovered any statistics of a similar char- 
acter in Brooklyn, because lectures have not been established there. 
The use of the school buildings in the evenings for lecture purposes 



34 

involves additional expenditures for gas, fuel, etc. It seems incom- 
prehensible that the analyst and the committee of verification over- 
looked such statistics, and one of the most important forms of popu- 
lar education in the entire city. It is possible that the compilers 
excluded the free lecture system from their consideration on the 
ground that it is one of the " various fads" (referred to on page 19). 

It appears to be unnecessary to make further argument on the sub- 
ject except to say perhaps that a further inspection of school statis- 
tics would have shown that there are fully twice as many evening 
schools in Manhattan and The Bronx as in Brooklyn with an attend- 
ance of over 3 to 1 in proportion. Add to these facts the Free Lec- 
ture Course attended by o\'er half a million people, and enough has 
been said. 

In the matter of janitors' salaries, the remark made in regard to 
"equivalent results" and "equal services" again comes into play. 
The report seeks to show, by placing schools of same number of class- 
rooms in comparison, that salaries are unequal. It does not follow 
because one school has the same class-room capacity as another 
that the janitor's salary should be fixed accordingly. Other 
factors are necessarily employed, for instances: 

Building surface, numl)er of 1,000 square feet. 
Sidewalks, etc., surface, number of 1,000 square feet. 
Number of boilers. 
Number of furnaces. 
Number of stoves. 
Rental allowance, etc. 

Exactly what the number of scholars has to do with the case is 
problematical; if salaries were based in such manner they would 
fluctuate, and the janitor of a school in a section which is losing its 
population owing to the northward or suburban trend thereof, ^^'ould 
be an unfortunate sufferer, while called upon to perform the same 
duties as if the building he had cliarge of was filled to its capacity. 

It is deemed unnecessary to show here the exact relati^•e differ- 
ences between the several buildings mentioned in the report, and 
reference is made to portion of tiie letter of the Superintendent of 
School Buildings as to details. 



35 

SPECIFICATION 7. 

''That the printed estimates in the Budget contain no data 
that will enable the Board of Estimate and Apportionment to 
readily discover the discrepancies cited: that they cannot test 
questional )le items, because they cannot segregate the elements 
of cost, and therefore cannot compare the results of a gi\-en out- 
lay, with the results of other outlays for identical purposes 
under equivalent conditions; and, to sum up, that e^•ery essen- 
tial of effective audit and scrutiny is omitted. Because of 
these omissions the printed reports of the Board of Education 
have no statistical or actuarial value whate^'er. The}' con- 
tain no proper schedules or exhibits of details, no lucid 
digests, few needful or verifiable aggregates, and no clear 
summaries. They neither exhibit nor explain. As serious 
statements of the business affairs of a great corporation the>' 
are mere travesties." 
The foregoing specification is ingenious, although its basis is 
incorrect. It alleges that discrepancies exist; that questionable 
items are inserted; that no information is presented whereby dis- 
crepancies can be discovered by the Board of Estimate and Appor- 
tionment; that the results of a given outlay cannot be compared 
with the results of other outlays for identical purposes under equi^'a- 
alent conditions; and concludes, somewhat rashly perhaps, that 
because of alleged omissions in the printed estimates in the Budget, the 
printed reports are valueless, mere travesties, etc. 

There is a degree of ambiguity about this specification which is 
remarkable; and an analysis of its attempted logic produces doubt- 
ful results. It is clear, however, in one great particular, and that is 
the intent to so combine the details of the fabrication as to convey 
to the mind of the unwary and casual reader, that some WTong has 
occurred. Let it be clearly understood : 

1. That the alleged discrepancies do not exist, and their citation 
is the result of statistical manufacturing and manipulation. 

2. That the Board of Education has ne\'er submitted questionable 
items to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, and that the 
imputation thus cast is as reprehensible as it is malcxolent and un- 
true. 



36 

3. That the Board of Estimate and Apportionment has ah\a5's 
had the Commissioners of Accounts at its command, whose duty it is 
and has been to analyze, tabulate, examine, and report to the Board 
of Estimate and Apportionment, on the estimates of all dejDartments. 

4. That the Commissioners of Accounts did perform this duty in 
regard to the estimates of the Department of Education, and their 
reports and findino;s are matters of record, and available for the use 
and guidance of every member of the Board of Estimate and Appor- 
tionment. 

5. That the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, or an}' of its 
members, has never complained of the absence of requisite infor- 
mation, on the contrary, the method of compilation and information 
furnished has been the subject of favorable comment on more than 
one occasion. 

6. That because of alleged omissions in the printed estimates, the 
'printed reports of the Board of Education have no statistical or actu- 
arial value whatever, is a proposition per se, absurd. The printed 
estimates of the Board of Education are, as indicated by their desig- 
nation, estimates i^ure and simple of the approximate needs of the 
schools for the next ensuing calendar and fiscal year. These esti-- 
mates are, under the law, prepared and submitted many months 
before expenditures are made from the appropriations received from 
the city. Between the time of preparing an estimate and expending 
the money received thereunder, the situation and conditions change 
greath\ For instance, the first change will probably be the reduc- 
tion of certain appropriations by the Board of Estimate and Appor- 
tionment; this of itself may mean the total elimination of certain 
work proposed to be done or supplies to be furnished, and modifica- 
tion and reduction all along the lines. Again, market ])rices of 
building materials, supplies, etc., fluctuate, and rates of wages 
change. Strikes and labor troubles often affect conditions. It can 
be readily perceived, therefore, that the proposition to prepare the 
statistics of the annual report, based on the annual estimate, is at 
once impossible, na}', absurd. Because items, conditions and facts 
do not rigidly compare with mathematical precision, it is no reason 
for unjust condemnation. The estimate or budget is a financial 
proposition, and represents anticipated requirements, and things 



37 

which the Department of Education deems requisite and necessary 
to he done for the benefit of the school system. 

The annual report records facts and conditions, in other words, 
such things which have been accomplished with the financial means 
placed at the command of the Department, and the actual conditions 
prevailing during the period covered by the report. 

There should be no doubt in the mind of any one that the conclu- 
sions arrived at and comparisons drawn by the sponsors of the report 
are manifestly impractical and worthless. 

GENERAL. 

Among general remarks and criticisms the report further states, 
"that until the present year, the estimates of the departments have 
not been in printed form. They have occupied many thousand 
typewritten pages, and it was therefore a physical impossibility 
to examine them readily and with proper care. The people of this 
city owe Comptroller Coler a debt of gratitude for compelling a 
reform in this respect." 

While there is no intention of detracting from or diminishing 
Comptroller Coler's meed of praise, it is only fair to the Board of 
Education to state that it has always been its custom to submit 
the Budget in printed form. It can be stated without fear of con- 
tradiction that Comptroller Coler or the Board of Estimate and 
Apportionment cannot produce a typewritten Budget prepared by 
the Board of Education in ten years. Printed copies are still to be 
had of the Budgets for several years past. The statement made is 
absolutely without foundation or truth so far as relates to the 
Board of Education. 

The report further states: 

" The valuable beginning thus made is the more deserving 
of praise because of the exceeding difficulty of the task, inci- 
dent to harmonizing into one workable system the chaotic 
accounts of more than ninety separate municipal, village, town 
and school corporations merged into the consolidated city. 
But the admirable results already gained by the Comptroller's 
logical and analytical methods only emphasize the need of 
going further on the same lines." 



38 

So far as the harmonizing of the alleged chaotic accounts of the 
municipal, village, town and school corporations merged in the 
consolidated city, it can be stated in regard to the school cor- 
porations, that the Department of Education was placed under 
considerable disadvantages immediately after consolidation, by 
the action of the Finance Department in taking possession of 
all the educational records and data belonging to those school 
corporations. It was understood that the Comptroller's intention 
was to produce statements of affairs so that business could pro- 
ceed without stop or hindrance. The Comptroller engaged a 
large staff with which to produce results. The school corpora- 
tions became extinct on January 31, 1898, and it was not 
until fifteen months afterwards that this Department received 
from the Comptroller the first installment of "harmonized" and 
' ' admirable results. ' ' How the school system could have been 
carried on meantime if dependence had been placed upon the re- 
ceipt of such information is difficult to imagine. However, 
appreciating that the wheels of school administration were 
becoming clogged, and sore distress occasioned to contractors and 
other creditors, the Department of Education took drastic, though 
practical means of acquiring from other sources the much needed 
information. The Department of Education succeeded in accom- 
plishing this result, and was able, by the means adopted, to set up 
its accounts, and resume business where the former school corpora- 
tions had left off. The records thus set up by the Department of 
Education were found to be of considerable use to the Comptroller's 
staff in forming their conclusions, and were placed at their disposal 
on request. 

The report goes on to call attention to the legal powerlessness of 
the Comptroller to check wasteful outlays of whose character he 
is aware, by reason of which it is further alleged that the city suffers 
heavily. The report further calls attention to bills inspected, now 
on file in the Comptroller's office (to which office the compiler 
appears to have had unusually easy access, considering the fact that 
the alleged investigation made is gratuitous and not called for by 
any public demand), which bills contain alleged overcharges, re- 
sulting from contracts or agreements made by city officials under 



39 

statutory provisions wliich enable them to commit the city to the 
payment of sucli obHgations. 

While the foregoing is included in the report on educational 
research, it is questionable whether or not it is intended to apply 
to the Department of Education. If the intention is veiled,and 
aims at the inclusion of the Department of Education, it is eminently 
proper to repudiate the statement. 

Great care is and has always been exercised by the Department in 
order to prevent waste and needless expense. It may not be gener- 
ally known, but it is nevertheless a fact, that competitive bids are 
sought for work or supplies of even small amount. In the case of 
work or supplies amounting to over $1,000, this Department con- 
forms to the usual custom of the city, statutory in some departments, 
although discretionary with the Department of Education. Bids 
are publicly invited and contracts let to the lowest bidder. In the 
case of work or supplies under $1,000, bids are invited from well- 
known and reputable concerns, and the orders are then given to the 
lowest bidders. It appears to be questionable whether the Comp- 
troller's conclusions as to the value of school work, materials and 
supplies, are of any greater value than those of authorities in actual 
charge of the school system, and it is equally questionable whether 
the Comptroller's means and facilities for the determination of such 
matters are any better, or as good as those of the educational author- 
ities of this city. If his means, methods, facilities for administra- 
tion, and knowledge, honesty and probity, are better than what is 
to be found in the other departments of the City Government, then 
it would be best and most economical for the entire city adminis- 
tration to be placed in his sole charge, not excepting the care and 
education of the children. Such a recommendation would be a 
fitting finale to the report under consideration. It can, however, be 
suggested with propriety that all the ability, intelligence and honesty 
is not solely centered in the Department of Finance; these qualifica- 
tions are also to be found elsewhere. 

The assertion that " while this particular form of waste of the 
people's money is not legal fraud, it is fraud in its essence" is some- 
what paradoxical, and whether it is an excuse for the wrongful pay- 
ment of claims by the Comptroller, or a suggestion that it is the 



40 

moral duty of the Comptroller to resist such payments, or that the 
Comptroller is the only one capable of saving the city from the re- 
sults of fraud and extortion, is indeed problematical. 

If any fraud exists, no matter in what form, it is the duty of the 
Comptroller under the law to refuse paj^ment; and if any fraud 
exists in the Department of Education, or any other department, 
it is his moral and legal duty to place such information in the hands of 
the proper authorities as will preclude the furtherance of such prac- 
tices. 

It should be expressly understood that in the making of contracts 
the Comptroller's indorsement is required by the statute, and it 
should be his duty to decline to approve any contract in which fiavd 
of any kind exists, of which he has knowledge. 

In conclusion, this Department desires to express its regret that 
a reputable business organization should' swerve from its particular 
line of usefulness, and permit itself to become the medium through 
which an unwarranted and unjustifiable attack has been made upon 
the administration and affairs of the public schools of this city. 

Yours respectfully. 

Miles M. O'Brien, 

President of the Board of Education 

of the City of New York. 



V 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

!!!!!! !!!*! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!' !!!" < •< "'i' "i iiii iiii 



021 780 316 i 



J p 




/'^^/ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

lllillllllll • 



021 780 316 



Hollinger Corp. 



